|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-backs-mosque-bans-152052930.htmlQuote:
Herman Cain backs mosque bans
.By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket – 4 hrs ago.. .
Cain (Erik Scheizig/AP)
Presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday sided with communities that want to ban mosques, saying Americans have a right to oppose the construction of places of Islamic worship.
During a discussion on "Fox News Sunday" of a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. that has drawn protests, legal challenges and even arson, host Chris Wallace asked the former Godfather's Pizza CEO his feelings about communities that wish to ban mosques.
"Yes, they have the right to do that," Cain replied.
Last week, Cain, who is Christian, referred to the planned Murfreesboro mosque as an "infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" during interviews with reporters at a campaign stop in Murfreesboro. There, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is planning to build a new, larger facility to accommodate its growing congregation.
Cain and others believe leaders at this mosque are trying to force Islamic extremism upon the community. "I don't agree with what's happening because this isn't an innocent mosque," Cain said.
Cain repeated that argument Sunday, adding during his Fox interview that he's generally opposed to Islam.
"Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.
When asked if his beliefs constitute discrimination, Cain disagreed, saying: "I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying."
You can watch Cain's Fox News Sunday interview below, via Mediaite:
Cain provoked questions about discrimination earlier this year when he said that he would not be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge if elected.
Cain told Fox host Glenn Beck in June that he would appoint Muslims who pledged loyalty to the U.S. Constitution--and conceded that we would not require the same pledge from believers who have faced past charges of divided loyalties in U.S. politics, such as Catholics.
While I don't know exactly much about this entire situation ... it doesn't exactly look good.
That being said, I can understand the position of both sides regardless of what Cain says or thinks.
If I am a citizen of a small town and we all worship one form of god, would we really want or feel comfortable with another god coming in? (Not naming specific religions just to keep it simple). I almost think that whether or not it would be prejudice (it would be by the way) would a community have the right to deny something from coming in that they don't want?
If they don't want a strip club or a casino they can block it. If they don't want a megamall they could block it. As a community I almost believe they should be entitled to decide what's in their own backyard.
That being said ... this country was founded on religious freedom. I don't exactly think it's fair to tell someone "you can believe whatever you want ... as long as it's within these parameters." Or ... "sure you can worship your god ... just not here!"
Tough subject for me not because of specific incident but because of the principles behind it.. Do individuals have the right to follow their own beliefs and pursue their own happiness if it infringes on the happiness and lives of others? 
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Empirically, I completely agree with him. Those communities that choose to do this DO have that right.
However, the media will paint him stating that as him wanting communities to do that... and that's where this whole thing becomes nothing more than muckraking.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
People always seem to forget the second part of the first amendment ...  Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Then again, everyone seems to convienently forget that part when it comes to removing crosses from public land. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
No a community should not be allowed to ban the construction of a mosque. If there is enough interest and enough people there to build it and support it then to deny it just because the majority says otherwise is tyranny by the majority.
And I don't care WHAT Cain says about it being a good mosque or a bad mosque, if he has proof that there is some terrorist or subversive intent behind building it then bring that forward because then it becomes a criminal issue. But to assume they hope to combine church and state or use this as anything other than a house of worship just because it's "Islam" is not good enough.
I find that Christian people who want to forbid construction of a mosque in their neighborhood based on the fact that they don't trust Islam just aren't very secure in their own faith...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Presidential hopeful Herman Cain
sorry, I couldn't get past this part without busting up laughing.
through my fits of laughter I did manage to read through the rest and completely disagree with him because to block the building of a mosque because they don't have enough people to 'vote it in' is the type of religious persecution that people were trying to escape when this country was founded in the first place.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
No a community should not be allowed to ban the construction of a mosque. If there is enough interest and enough people there to build it and support it then to deny it just because the majority says otherwise is tyranny by the majority.
And I don't care WHAT Cain says about it being a good mosque or a bad mosque, if he has proof that there is some terrorist or subversive intent behind building it then bring that forward because then it becomes a criminal issue. But to assume they hope to combine church and state or use this as anything other than a house of worship just because it's "Islam" is not good enough.
I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Last week, Cain, who is Christian, referred to the planned Murfreesboro mosque as an "infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion"
That statement makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I can understand his desire to not have a mosque in his back yard, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, until I read this: Quote:
"Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.
This is, at its best, incredible ignorance and, at its worst, intentional deceit of the worst kind. If Mr. Cain truly does not understand that Islamic law is not legally binding in the US, then he is probably not the type of person that should be entertaining a bid for the Presidency. Knowing nothing about Mr. Cain, though, I doubt that he actually believes this, which means I can only suspect that this is some sort of rhetoric used to rally those who don't know any better to his cause.
Quote:
If I am a citizen of a small town and we all worship one form of god, would we really want or feel comfortable with another god coming in? (Not naming specific religions just to keep it simple). I almost think that whether or not it would be prejudice (it would be by the way) would a community have the right to deny something from coming in that they don't want?
Constitutionally, no.
Quote:
If they don't want a strip club or a casino they can block it. If they don't want a megamall they could block it. As a community I almost believe they should be entitled to decide what's in their own backyard.
Nowhere in the Constitution are strip clubs and casinos given any sort of express protection, as religion is.
Quote:
Do individuals have the right to follow their own beliefs and pursue their own happiness if it infringes on the happiness and lives of others?
I'm personally of the belief that all rights pertaining to life, liberty, happiness and property are relative; there are no absolutes. That's just me though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
From what I have heard from Cain ... he has a couple of good ideas ..... then he throws out a whacko thing like this one. I am "generally opposed" to Islam, because I believe in Christ as the Messiah. I also believe in a separation of church and state ... which is problematic in some sects of Islam. However, if someone wants to practice their religion in a peaceful manner, than I don't care if they want to worship God, Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, The devil, cows, a turtle named Fred, or a pothole in the middle of E 9th street 3 blocks from the stadium. Who people choose to worship is none of my business, as long as they do so n a peaceful manner. If they become violent, then it becomes a legal matter. (if they are US citizens, inside the US)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Putting a cross on public land is NOT a free exercise of religion. It is FORCING all taxpayers to take part in subsidizing that particular religion. It is, in fact, the state attempting to push or mandate a single religion above all others. This is wrong. Just subsititute a Satanic symbol in place of your cross, and tell me you'd support THAT "free exercise".
As for Islam and the law, many sects of Islam adhere to Sharia law, and specifically require that it be held to be above the "law of the land". Most Christians will concede that wherever specific religious commandments are in conflict with local laws. the "law of the land" should be followed instead. SFAIK, there is no phrase corresponding to "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" in the Koran.
Should a large mosque with daily meetings be allowed to be built in a residential area? Good and legitimate reasons why not. Zoning laws can be quite restrictive, and the local community determines what they are. No act of Congress involved here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581 |
You're pretty sharp Nelson.
Good post.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,406 |
Peen I agree with you about 95% of the time.... ...and this is just another time where I agree with you 
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
Should a large mosque with daily meetings be allowed to be built in a residential area? Good and legitimate reasons why not. Zoning laws can be quite restrictive, and the local community determines what they are. No act of Congress involved here.
So long as those "good and legitimate reasons why not"  also apply to any religious building (or, perhaps, any commercial building), you might have a point. However, even a zoning law is subject to constitutional review. It is hard to imagine that a zoning law prohibiting a mosque while permitting the construction of a church or temple on the same property would pass constitutional muster if a muslim group wanted to press the issue in court.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So long as those "good and legitimate reasons why not" also apply to any religious building (or, perhaps, any commercial building), you might have a point. However, even a zoning law is subject to constitutional review. It is hard to imagine that a zoning law prohibiting a mosque while permitting the construction of a church or temple on the same property would pass constitutional muster if a muslim group wanted to press the issue in court.
Actually there is a perfectly legit reason and it's not at all religious. Have you ever lived or worked near a large mosque or a large church? A mosque has weekday prayers every afternoon that are often heavily attended and during the week, when traffic is already being congested from commuters trying to get home, mosques block traffic, require police to direct traffic, and create havoc... churches are typically only like that on Sunday when there isn't really any other traffic.... so while they are both houses of worship, the way they function is completely different so I don't have a problem considering that when determining where one can be built.
That said, no town should have a blanket "no mosque" policy. Reasonable accomodations should be made for everybody to practice their religion.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Most Christians will concede that wherever specific religious commandments are in conflict with local laws. the "law of the land" should be followed instead.
That's not what the Bible says. So far this country has not passed any specific laws that require me to do something that is against the Christian faith as I believe it, but if they do, I will follow my faith.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
So you don't believe you should Render Unto Ceasar That Which Is Ceasar's?
SFAIK, that passage is generally understood to mean exactly what I said it means, and also SFAIK, most congregational leaders preach to that concept.
Virtually none preach violent opposition. Many Islamic leaders preach just exactly that.
I have read that this particular passage is not original to the text but was in fact inserted during the last major edit, by King James, who was effectively Ceasar at the time. However, it IS in the book.
As for the zoning laws, if no other religious organization applied to use the EXACT same plot of land, within a fairly short time period, there would be no case to compare with.
There is a large, hi-rent community near to me called Sanibel Island. They have passed an ordinance dictating that McDonald's will not be allowed there, even in the commercial district. They have a Dairy Queen, but no McDonald's. The people who live there apparently don't want one. McD's have been fighting this for some years now, and so far have gotten nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I think it's safe to say that there is a less-than-slight difference between a house of worship and a fast-food chain with regard to the Constitution. State and local government can't regulate religious practice any more than federal government can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
I think it's safe to say that there is a less-than-slight difference between a house of worship and a fast-food chain with regard to the Constitution. State and local government can't regulate religious practice any more than federal government can.
Exactly. A business can be stopped from opening up a new store somewhere, but religious freedom can't. If a millionaire wanted to build a huge mosque for 5 people to attend, he could do so as long as he owned the land and got the correct permits, etc. He could not be denied the mosque purely because the rest of the town didn't want it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I think it's safe to say that there is a less-than-slight difference between a house of worship and a fast-food chain with regard to the Constitution. State and local government can't regulate religious practice any more than federal government can.
what if the McRib is back?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So you don't believe you should Render Unto Ceasar That Which Is Ceasar's?
Paying taxes is not a sin... how is me paying my taxes in conflict with my faith?
Quote:
As for the zoning laws, if no other religious organization applied to use the EXACT same plot of land, within a fairly short time period, there would be no case to compare with.
There is often no direct comparison, if a town decides to build a waste water plant where nothing stood before, there is nothing to compare it to.. or a prison... or an airport... so you do the study, you look at the size of the facility, you look at the usage of the facility, the potential traffic flow around it, hours of operation, number of potential attendees... and you make a decision.. you don't have to have an exact comparison to make a decision whether a mosque or any other structure would pose a potential disruption.
Quote:
There is a large, hi-rent community near to me called Sanibel Island. They have passed an ordinance dictating that McDonald's will not be allowed there, even in the commercial district. They have a Dairy Queen, but no McDonald's. The people who live there apparently don't want one. McD's have been fighting this for some years now, and so far have gotten nowhere.
They are just being snobs.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Exactly. A business can be stopped from opening up a new store somewhere, but religious freedom can't. If a millionaire wanted to build a huge mosque for 5 people to attend, he could do so as long as he owned the land and got the correct permits, etc. He could not be denied the mosque purely because the rest of the town didn't want it.
Can you show me the basis in law for this? The first amendment does not give you the right to build a giant mosque or a cathedral wherever you want. It gives you the right to peacefully practice your religion.. that's it. It has NOTHING to do with local zoning ordinances.
Which is why I said earlier, a town most certainly should be able to have zoning which dictates to some extent WHERE you can build a house of worship, not IF you can build one. As long as reasonable accomodations are made for all faiths..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
However, you cannot say that a person cannot build a house of worship in an area for one religion while allowing another faith to build a house of worship in the same area.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
However, you cannot say that a person cannot build a house of worship in an area for one religion while allowing another faith to build a house of worship in the same area.
Again, it does sort of go to usage because mosques are used at completely different times than most churches... so I could see a logical reason why you could. Plus, many churches are well established in residential neighborhoods and have been there for decades and towns sort of grew up around them.. so it's also not necessarily logical to say that you should then be able to build a mosque right beside it. I have no problem with mosques and I would gladly side with the mosque if the town was being unreasonable... but that would be on a case by case basis.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
The reasons for passing such a zoning regulation would have to be wholly secular in their nature. That's a steep hill to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The reasons for passing such a zoning regulation would have to be wholly secular in their nature. That's a steep hill to climb.
I used to work on the 13th floor of a building one exit down 395 from the Pentagon, was there when the plane hit... from my window I could see a mosque on the otherside of 95 that was on Route 7. This is a very congested artery out of the Alexandria/Arlington area of Northern Virginia.. every week day afternoon the Muslims would come to pray... hundreds of them, some walking, many driving.. they had 3 cops directing traffic at various intersections (the mosque didn't pay for the cops which sort of bugged me that the city paid for them) but I digress... this mosque had been there a long time, before traffic had become such a problem and attendance had grown considerably over the years... it caused a HUGE disruption to traffic and caused most people to take less convenient routes home in the evening... I'm fairly certain that knowing what they know now, they would not have allowed a mosque to be built there again.. a church on the other hand, would have had NONE of that week day traffic.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
Quote:
Quote:
Most Christians will concede that wherever specific religious commandments are in conflict with local laws. the "law of the land" should be followed instead.
That's not what the Bible says. So far this country has not passed any specific laws that require me to do something that is against the Christian faith as I believe it, but if they do, I will follow my faith.
100% agree
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
What Sanibel did was not to restrict McDs specifically. They just passed very limiting rules on signage, and IIRC finally on parking. They made it cost-prohibitive for McD's to locate there, without ever directly targeting them, or at least maintained "plausible deniability".
For instance, the city could pass an ordnance that any public building in a certain area could not exclude citizens from certain areas based on sex, as I believe most Moslems do not allow men and women to worship together.
They could pass an ordnance against wearing masks, or veils, in public.
You could argue they are restricting "free exercise", they could argue they are advocating equal rights and public safety.
There are limits to the free exercise. If the Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to locate on the residential lot next door to you, and practice hymns 24-7, you and your neighbors would have a legitimate complaint. If they wanted to put a facility hosting thousands within the city limits of a small town, traffic and parking congestion alone would be good reasons to refuse this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I'm clearly not a Supreme Court justice, but I still don't think that would pass muster. Clearly a zoning restriction that said "no mosques here" (or temple, synagogue, cathedral or other house of worship as it applies to the discussion at hand) would be struck down quickly. It wouldn't surprise me to see a restriction prohibiting all houses of worship struck down, either, unless the restriction served a legitimate interest. I don't think traffic is that interest. But that's just my opinion.
As an aside, there is a church not far from my house that shuts down one eastbound lane on Mayfield Rd., a main route from downtown Cleveland to the near east suburbs. My wife frequently has to contend with traffic from a megachurch across the street from her job. Obviously not as extreme as your example but certainly analagous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Someone could argue your hypotheticals, certainly, and if they were challenged as to their Constitutionality, they'd almost certainly be struck down.
If the Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to relocate to my neighbor's lot I might have a complaint, but it would be related to noise, not religion. It would be no different than if my neighbor aimed a 1000w loudspeaker at my bedroom window and blasted Billy Graham or Buddhist chants or some other equally religious audio recording. Clearly the primary interest is that of public decorum, not religious prohibition, as the law in this case would be equally applicable if my neighbor was cranking Slayer records at 2AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Someone could argue your hypotheticals, certainly, and if they were challenged as to their Constitutionality, they'd almost certainly be struck down.
If the Mormon Tabernacle Choir wanted to relocate to my neighbor's lot I might have a complaint, but it would be related to noise, not religion. It would be no different than if my neighbor aimed a 1000w loudspeaker at my bedroom window and blasted Billy Graham or Buddhist chants or some other equally religious audio recording. Clearly the primary interest is that of public decorum, not religious prohibition, as the law in this case would be equally applicable if my neighbor was cranking Slayer records at 2AM.
Well put.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Maybe I didn't point this out clearly enough, but you are making my point for me.
You do not legislate specifically against the religion, because that you cannot do. What you CAN do is legislate against certain specific actions in a general public sense with the unstated goal of denying some levels of the "free exercise". Just like Sanibel Island did with McDonalds.
My city used to have a zoning law that prohibited the parking of a pickup truck, of any kind, in view of the street. It stood for 10-15 years before finally being struck down. City ordnances can be all fourteen kinds of whacky.
The wearing of veils has already been outlawed in certain areas, courts, airports, etc. SFAIK any entity that accepts any public funds must comply with equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws. An entity which consumes public services and does not pay taxes could be construed as taking public funds. The city could go so far as to refuse payment, if offered, and insist that the mosque is a tax-free enterprise, in order to require compliance.
Sure there could and probably would be a challenge, and they may or may not lose. However, it would take years to work its way through the courts. During that time, nothing gets built. Now you could argue that whatever compelling need was requiring the mosque to be built in that particular spot must not have been that compelling, and/or the problem solves itself because they go and build it somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
What you CAN do is legislate ... with the unstated goal of denying some levels of the "free exercise".
Not if that free exercise is Constitutionally protected.
No offense, but if it were that easy to circumvent the Constitution, smarter men than you with a lot more at stake than a discussion on Dawgtalkers.net would've successfully done so years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
They have done it, many times.
The right to keep and bear arms is specifically protected, yet it is severely infringed. The details on how this was done pertaining to automatic weapons constitute a textbook case on just exactly how you circumvent the Constitution. Similar to Marijuana laws, it is not illegal to possess, only illegal to not pay the tax. For guns, there are requirements in order to be allowed to pay, for pot, there is simply nowhere to send your money. I forget which came first, but one was modeled on the other, because it worked.
For those who wish to point out the "in an organized militia" clause, SFAIK the only Supreme Court ruling on this issue states that "the militia" consists of every able-bodied man in the country. Sorry ladies,this was a long time ago and has not been re-visited. I'm sure you'll be included next time.
Heard of the Mormons? Anything in the Constitution about plural marriage? Three guesses why it is illegal.
Are the Satanists allowed to perform human sacrifice?
Ever seen a tent revival meeting? Ever looked at city ordinances regarding fire codes and safety inspections for similar gatherings? These ordnances do not target religious meetings, but have been used to shut them down.
You are not allowed to walk into a bank wearing a mask. Nor an airport, or courtroom. A religious belief that women must be veiled in public does not trump a public safety concern. SFAIK, any ordnances on the subject do not mention veils, or religion, simply a requirement that identity not be concealed.
There are reasonable limitations that can be made. All you have to do is come up with a reasonable goal, OTHER THAN affecting the religion.
It would help, but you don't have to be smarter than me to do these things. Even if you do, there are at least a few hundred thousand in this country that qualify.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Maybe I didn't point this out clearly enough, but you are making my point for me.
I wasn't really trying to disagree with you. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
There are reasonable limitations that can be made. All you have to do is come up with a reasonable goal, OTHER THAN affecting the religion.
Man, you're too much. I said exactly what is quoted above 10 posts ago. In your post previous to this you said that the goal would be to, and I quote, "deny some levels of the 'free exercise'". If a government, be it federal, state or local, enacts a law, statute, ordinance, etc, with the objective of restricting free religious practice, whether the objective is stated, implied or otherwise ascertained it will undoubtedly be struck down. If the purpose is to serve a legitimate public interest, and a religious group or groups are collaterally affected, then it may stand. This is not what you're suggesting. You're proposing a fraud, a deception, by enacting a law that on its face appears innocuous but which really has a different purpose.
Masks are not prohibited in banks and airports because lawmakers want to discriminate against Muslim women. Polygamy is not prohibited because lawmakers want to discriminate against Mormon men. They serve legitimate public interests and, as such, do not violate the Constitution.
Your points on guns and marijuana are topics for another day, in another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm just curious but what public interest is served by not allowing an adult man in Utah from having 2 consenting adult wives?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
A quick search of the Internet brought me to Reynolds v. United States where the Court upheld an act prohibiting bigamy and polygamy in 1878. Feel free to read the opinion. I don't know if the Court has heard any cases challenging polygamy since. Not particularly concerned, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
I'm just curious but what public interest is served by not allowing an adult man in Utah from having 2 consenting adult wives?
First off they'd divorce him in California and each get 50%.
So, think of it as a public service to moronic men.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
That's "Mormon", not "moron" 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
So would a law prohibiting the wearing of veils in any public space be a fraud and deception, or would it be serving a legitimate public interest? Who makes that call, both at the time of enacting the law and how long do you think it would take to reach the Supremes, and what odds would you give of them hearing the case?
The word "veils" would not be used in the law, it would reference "any device whose sole purpose is to obscure the identity of the wearer." Probably only for the commercial district, where any structure with high occupancy and high traffic flow should be located. (like a mosque, for instance, while not specifically referencing any such structure)
We are talking about bodies that have raised BS to an art form. Obscuring additional or primary purposes to legislation, or pointing them out when largely non-existent, is their main goal in life.
The difference between what will "stand" and what will be "struck down" is in the eye of the beholder. All you have to do is BS convincingly and have you ever seen a politician who could not do that? Also, a long delay is nearly as good as a permanent law, which almost none of them are, anyway.
1878 would be slightly after the Mormons were run out of Indiana or Illinois at gunpoint and right around the time there were concerns they might be trying to set up a seperate country in Utah. At that time, armed conflicts between Mormons and other citizens in farily large groups were not uncommon.
Eliminating the Mormons as a powerful group was seen by many to be serving a "legitimate public purpose" at the time. In terms of Congress and the Government, a clear and near-unanimous majority held this opinion.
But of course, this particular law was not AT ALL intended to attack the Mormon religion, it was just mandating that a central part of their religion, which virtually nobody else but them was doing, should be made illegal in order to serve a clear and obvious public good.
Excellent example.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Herman Cain Backs Mosque Bans
|
|
